Monday, July 27, 2015

That I am not sure Eric Barker 's advice is going to make you an expert negotiator, but it will definitely point you in the right direction.

Barker wants us to understand That negotiation is a cooperative enterprise, not a conflict. One is trying to craft a deal that is fair to both parties involved. If you think That negotiation is a semi-polite way to take advantage of someone else, You have gotten it wrong.

Barker Explains:

Often we associate With Being tough negotiation or manipulative. While there are Situations Where Certainly that's the case, a great deal of the recent research says we can improve increase our results by thinking more about making friends than waging war.

Negotiation is not a blood sport. Today, one presidential candidate, in particular touts his status as a tough negotiator. Since he's only ever dealt in business negotiations, it is difficult to know how his tough-guy shtick would go over in the political arena. One suspects that it would not go over very well.

By now, it ought to be obvious that our current president, as inept as a negotiator we have seen in quite some time, believes that negotiation with foreign powers while giving in negotiation with His political opponents requires constant confrontation and insults.

What does it take to be a good negotiator? Barker explains: being a decent person, having good character ... Being polite, courteous and kind. No one is going to negotiate in good faith With Someone who is trying to take advantage of him and is neither trustworthy nor likable.

Barker offers several pieces of excellent advice. To be a good negotiator, You Should Be warm and friendly, not cold and distant. You should be polite and optimistic. Try adding a touch of mood and offer something to eat or drink. People Who share meals are more likely to want to work together than people Who Do not.

Also, You should extend an open hand of trust. You should pay close attention to what the other person wants or needs to get out of the deal. Because negotiation Involves reciprocal give-and-take. You will need to give up something in order to get something. And you should know what matters to your partner. You can only figure this out by listening closely.

A great negotiator does not try to bluff his way through the process by bloviating and playing tough guy. He does not threaten His partner and does not make public announcements grandiose About how have is going to force His partner to do this or that. A good deal has to be face-saving for Both parties.

Negotiating a private business deal has very little to do with negotiating on behalf of your nation with a foreign government.

Keep in mind, the leaders of other nations Have Their pride, too. If you announce that you 'are going to humiliate them, That you are going to force them to do what you want and to pay for it too, They will never, never, never access to the demands. If negotiating with you IMPLIES a loss of face, your partner will go to war before I will access to your demands.

All of these pieces of advice are important. No one wants to do business with someone who is out to get him, to take advantage of him. You would not make a deal with such a person, would you?

Yet, the one factor that Barker omits and that I would underscore is this: a great negotiator has expertise and experience. A truly great negotiator has complete command of all the Relevant information. There are no short-cuts. You need to know it all. Then you will manifest the quiet confidence of Someone who is really in charge.

That's why inexperienced negotiators, or at least Negotiators have no experience in government, how great must insist constantly that they are. They do not have a track record of political accomplishment to support the boast. Anyone who has spent a career in real estate can not have any taken the time and effort to know all that he needs to know about foreign policy and international trade. He will have to bluff. Sometimes it might work. More often it will not.

Apparently, a considerable number of Republican voters believe that someone with no experience in government will effortlessly beat down foreign governments and ply them to his will. And They believe that such a person will overwhelm the political opposition by the sheer force of his personality.

4 comments:

Barker: We often associate negotiation with being tough or manipulative. While there are certainly situations where that’s the case, a great deal of the recent research says we can improve our results by thinking more about making friends than waging war.

I wondered what he meant saying "tough" or "manipulative". Is manipulativeness a type of toughness, or the opposite of toughness?

Definition: That attempts to control or play upon others' hopes or fears to attain selfish ends while disregarding their aspirations or well being.

So that seems a fair definition, but you might also ask "How do I not act manipulatively?" If "being funny" disarms people, is that manipulative? Is offering free stuff like food manipulative?

How do you regard versus disregard someone else's aspirations or well being? How do you even know if you're disregarding?

So the answer would seem to have something to do with empathy. It means the golden rule.

An unexpected thing I've found in negotiations is probably in MOST cases it is NOT a negotiation between equals, but one person has more power than the other, more willingness to say no, and its very easy to abuse that power, when you're in the one-up position. You might not even know it, unless you put yourself in the other's place.

So the "correct" balance point of a negotiation might be for the one-up person to be generous, and not take "the best deal you can get", but the deal that was "fair" given the disproportionate need.

what utter nonsense ... the research is pure BS ... talk about setting someone up for failure ... get the best deal you can for your side THATS IT ... there are tons of ways to accomplish that a but I doubt Bakers methods will work ... guess what, EVERY single negotiation turns out imbalanced ... every single one ... nobody has perfect vision of the future so in the end one party will gain more than the other ... but guess what ... the party that ended up on the short end will use that experience in their next negotiation ... this idea that there is an ideal balance between parties is pure nonsense ... unless you can see into the future you can't possibly know if the deal you just negotiated strikes that perfect balance ... so its a waste of time to even try ...

This is just a veiled attempt at kneecapping Trump and is beneath you Stuart ... we get it, you don't like Trump ... no need to dredge up a side story about negotiation research to try and discredit him ...

Thanks, Sam, for pointing out the capitalization problem. I have no idea how it happened and am pretty sure it was not there when I put the post up. I have corrected the problem.. I hope. Thanks KD for the comment, but Trump insists that he is a great negotiator. He says it over and over again. I see no reason why we cannot question the idea.